HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0561 and id is 1 raw text is: 1006 FISHER V. OGLE 1 CAMP. 417.
we shall have together for some time: we are at a [417] standstill. But. after
the checks had been put into the clerk's hands for the above purpose, and before
they were delivered, a demand was made upon Pears at his counting-house by one
of the defendants, for the repayment of the £1400 ; and on receiving the checks,
they gave up the bill upon Hudson, Storr and Co. for £1200.
Lord Ellenborough.-I am of opinion that this is not to be considered as a
voluntary payment, one of the defendants having called at the bankrupt's before
the cheques were delivered, although they had previously been put into the clerk's
hands for that purpose. The intermediate demand takes it out of the cases hitherto
decided upon this subject. There was an intention of giving a voluntary preference
but that intention not having been consummated, the payment stands good.
Plaintiffs nonsuited.*
The Attorney-General, Garrow, and Marryat for the plaintiffs.
Park and Walton for the defendants.
[Attornies, Crowder & Co. and Walton.]
[418] Thursday, July 28, 1808.
FISHER V. OGLE.
(The sentence of a foreign Court of Admiralty is evidence only of what it positivelv
and specifically affirms in the adjudicative part of it-not of what nay be
gathered from it by way of inference.)
This was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship J nmo, represeir ed ,s
American, at and from London to the coast of Africa, during her stay and trade
there, and from thence to her port or ports of discharge in the West lndies.
The - Juno ' was captured by a French privateer, carried into Martinique, and
there condemned in the Vice-Admiralty Court.
To falsify the representation of neutrality, the defendant now gave in evidence
the sentence of condemnation. This stated, - that it resulted evident]-, from the
papers on board, that the expedition of the said ship 'Juno,' her cargo, and the
operations of her captain on the coast of Africa, were for account of the Brothers
Geddes, merchants of London, who had, to masque the English property of this
outfit, borrowed the American flag and passport of the said ship 'Juno,' and
taken for their agent and partner in this expedition Captain Fisher, furnished wit i
a certificate of citizen of the United States. The sentence afterwards went oil to
declare as good and valid prize the slave ship Juno, and to contiscate the said
ship and her cargo to the profit of her captors-without stating any specilic groun,s
for the condemnation.
[419 Lord Ellenborough.-We shew at sufficient r(~icct for French .vn mc,,s,
if we attach credit in our Courts to what they distinctlY say. It is oftc:: :L:,ful
to go this length, considering the piratical way in which they iproceed. lml this
sentence does not say that the ship was not A merican. anl it is not to be colisildercd
as evidence of what it does not specially affirm. I dart sa.y such senteinces will be
positive enough in future, since those who frame them are disposed to conidt er
everything as good prize against all miankind. When t lie; do speak out, I will give
them the same effect here which they receive iin tither plaes. Bit there is no proof
in the present ease that the property was int Americait :Itlighi such an inoferete
might be drawn from certain indirect statements in the sentence now presented
to us.
Verdict for the plaintilf.
In the ensuing tern Park Imoved for a rule to slew cauiesi whv there shotild
no be a new trial. lie contended that it necessarily resdied from the t,,rims of I lie
sentence of the French Admiralt.y Court, that tihe ship -Jiiio aml ier cargo
were not American. althoghi this \.is int positi\ely averred in aiy part of it;
anm that, according to ti principle of former (lecisions, the seltence of a foreign
Court of Comlpetent jnrisdictioi imust be taken as conclusive evidiiice of the facts
upon which it, evidently proceeds.
[420] Lord Ellenboroigh.-I must look to the adj udicative part of the scitence,
and there I find nothing distinctly stated as to the shit or her cargo not being
* Vide Sotilt v. 'ayM'i. 6 '1'. it. 152 ; Hartshorm v. Slodden, 2 B. & P. 362;
Thornton v. Hargyreaves, 7 East, 544.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0561&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)